Just wondering if the new Sony 10-18 f4 e-mount lens will be the new WA flagship lens for UW photography with the Nex series (especially the NEX-7). Any UW reviews?
Also, has anyone seen the Nauticam port for it?
Cheers,

bgfspeedy

A Diver Once Said "A bad dive is always better than a good day at work!"

Like all other super wide rectilinear lenses in this focal length range, corner sharpness will be a challenge if used wide open. This can be managed by stopping down, and working in the 11-12mm range instead of full wide.

Like all other super wide rectilinear lenses in this focal length range, corner sharpness will be a challenge if used wide open. This can be managed by stopping down, and working in the 11-12mm range instead of full wide.

Hi Ryan,

Thanks a lot for that. Those are pictures from Edward Lai from Nauticam. I saw those too. However, he talks about a pre production port, but the post was from early February. I was just wondering if there had been any evolution.
Thanks,

Bgfspeedy

A Diver Once Said "A bad dive is always better than a good day at work!"

Dear Edward: Thanks for the posting. Is there a zooming gear along with this port? How about black corners? Do I need to mount the lens separately from outside the housing as I did in another brand Nex housing?

All the underwater photos are using the 10-18mm and the Nauticam 7" port with my NEX-5n, almost all at the 10mm end. Lighting is 2x Mangrove 40W video lights (I shot more video than stills on this trip, video still in editing).

My thumbnail review: this setup is way sharper, particularly in the corners, than the 16mm + WA adapter with the 4.33" dome. Stabilisation and focus works well for video. If you want to use the zoom gear, the dome port must be removed, and then re-mounted once the camera and lens are installed in the housing body, but if you don't use the zoom gear the lens can be inserted from the rear of the housing leaving the port in place. The 7" dome is more buoyant than the 4.33", which works well for me since my video lights are very negative. My non-expert conclusion: it's a big upgrade from the 16mm + 4.33" dome, and I'm very happy with it. Any other questions, ask away.

Sorry, I don't have any stills with the 16mm + UWA to compare, but several of my videos use that combo - e.g: vimeo.com/55703933

[edit - The forum software insists on trying to embed the hyperlink to vimeo - so apologies the link above isn't clickable.]

I found the UWA works better with the 4.33" dome than the fisheye - apart from the centre of the frame, the fisheye was worse than 'soft' and well into 'blurry' territory. (I didn't use the fisheye u/w much because of that - stopping down a lot might have helped, but I'm often in low light as it is...)

Interesting, is this the general consent that the UWA gives better quality with the Nauticam dome than the fish eye converter?

Or this caused by variations in the quality of actual items in the combinations?

At what stop if stopped down are the UWA/fish eye acceptable (if any)?

Cheers

/O

I found the UWA works better with the 4.33" dome than the fisheye - apart from the centre of the frame, the fisheye was worse than 'soft' and well into 'blurry' territory. (I didn't use the fisheye u/w much because of that - stopping down a lot might have helped, but I'm often in low light as it is...)